STATEMENT OF THE GRG CHARTER...

(Initial publication on October 1991; slightly updated on February 11, 2011 and again on
December 24, 2013. )

The Gerontology Research Group -- with chapters located in Los Angeles, CA, San
Francisco, CA, New York, NY, Washington, D.C., and Atlanta, GA -- is dedicated to the
proposition that death is not an inevitable consequence of the human condition. Throughout
history, a variety of apologists for this condition have sought to persuade us that death must be
desirable, since it was unreasonable for us to try to do anything about it. But, to the contrary, we
hold that aging is simply a biological phenomenon dictated by our human genome. Therefore, it
is susceptible to clinical intervention like any other physiological/pathological process, such as
heart disease, cancer, COPD, stroke, or diabetes. With advances in modern science and medicine
accelerating, it is now time to devote significant resources to turning the tide and to appreciate
that death is an imposition on the human race that should no longer be tolerated.

In our view, the human lifespan is a side effect of an historical adaptation to our role as
hunter-gatherers, a role that was capriciously thrust upon us without our consent ~200,000 years
ago during the evolution of our mammalian hominid species. We imagine this prior era to have
been a fiercely competitive time during which Homo sapiens slowly differentiated from
our primate cousins through a process of Darwinian natural selection. There is now evidence that
no fewer than 20 hominid species (who stood on two legs) appeared on the scene around the
same time as we did, lived for a while, and then subsequently became extinct (presumably not by
choice). However, following the acquisition of sufficient technical means, our species came to
dominate the Earth (through the discovery of civilization), and we declared an immediate halt to
this relentless Darwinian game of life (thus, we ruthlessly eliminated all potential predators).
Subsequently, we came to appreciate the phenomenon of our own mortality secondary to intrinsic
aging (biological aging is never visible in nature; it only manifests itself in the context of zoos
where creatures are protected from predators within a civilization). Recognizing our impotence
to do anything about our condition, we decided that it was more prudent not to complain too
loudly. This may explain the basis for universal institutional apologism. But now we
are approaching a time (The Singularity) in which we will routinely intervene in the
aging process at the molecular level. We therefore dedicate ourselves to removing this arbitrary
constraint of a sharply limited human lifespan (a longevity phenotype that we now name "The
Calment Limit" in honor of Madam Jeanne-Louise Calment who died in 1997 at the age of 122).
Furthermore, we seek to accomplish this challenge within our own lifetimes.

In particular, we strive to achieve before the year 2040:

(1) A rigorous scientific understanding of the genetic and cellular mechanisms of
embryological development, reproductive maturation, aging, and senescence;

(2) The application of ongoing research in experimental biogerontology with the aim of
extending vital human lifespan without limit (as currently dictated by natural biological
processes).

Accordingly, we are open to consider a variety of therapeutic interventions, providing that
they can be shown to be effective, and that they can be reduced to practice within our own
lifetimes. Examples of such interventions include, but are not limited to the following: genetic
engineering using retroviral or liposomal vectors for the delivery of Human Artificial
Chromosomes that involve longevity determination, Embryonic and Autologous Adult
Stem-Cell Technology (induced pleuripotent cells, Therapeutic Cloning, and related cytokines),
telomeric manipulations to extend their length (to overcome the Hayflick Limit of
mitotically-challenged cells), rejuvenation of mitochondria such as takes place during
fertilization of the oocyte with epigenetic reprogramming, discoveries in nutrition or dietary
restriction, the development of new pharmacologic agents, the novel delivery of medications
and/or natural hormones (or their secretogogues) using implantable pumps, nanotechnology,
cryonic suspension (but only as a last resort), and other experimental investigations utilizing cells
from bacterial colonies, yeast, nematodes, fruit flies, fish, rodents, bats, rabbits, monkeys,
whales, as well as human embryonic and adult stem-cell lines.

Summary: As everyone is taught in childhood, the Biblical Prime Directive or
biological imperative for our species is to "Go forth and multiply." Our own GRG Prime
Directive, however, is quite different. It can be stated as...

"We seek to live indefinitely with the physical vigor of youth while retaining the intellectual
abilities of our present-day and ever-expanding mental capacity."

Objection by Religious Fundamentalists:

The ethics of modifying/editing our DNA to create this non-senescent human condition has
finally become clear. There would be nothing immoral or sacreligious whatsoever about repairing
our own poorly-designed DNA to fit our own purpose. Indeed, God did not tell us that our
species was to be designated as custodians/stewards of all other creatures on the planet to be
exploited for our own purposes, as stated in the Old Testament (Chapter 1 of the Book of
Genesis). This was simply wishful, self-indulgent, magical-thinking on the part of our
illiterate ancestors who told tales around the campfire to their tribal children/grandchildren
and labeled these stories "sacred prophesy," so that the next generation would more easily
memorize the verses in the then oral tradition (long before the invention of writing). To the
contrary, all creatures great and small, including our own species, are part of a biological
continuum with no special hierarchy whatsoever. The only true criterion for biological success is
"non-extinction of the next generation." Indeed, God would not shed a tear if humans were
suddenly obliterated from planet Earth tomorrow.

But who is God anyway that He might actually consider shedding a tear? There is no
teleological basis to His "intentionality" or "God's will" ("Thy will be done."). But this is an
absurdity. There is no design, purpose, intent, or objective function to having a God be the
divine creator of our planet along with its myriad life forms. As far as life is concerned (fast
forward from the "Big Bang" to planet Earth 5 BYA), God is nothing more than a stochastic
process (mathematically random over chronological time) in which He is constantly
inserting mutations revising/altering/editing our computer machine code (written now in the form
of DNA nucelotide sequences) to construct new biological machines that may perform better
(fitness) within the ecology/ecosystem, all the while subject to the standard Laws of Physics
(especially the 2nd Law [Entropy]). The program includes many phenotypic stepping-stone
phases, e.g., {seed, sprout root, bud, bloom, attract insect(s)/bird(s)/bat(s) with a variety of color-
pigments/fragrances, wilt, rot} employing a metaphor from the selfish agenda of flowering plants
in which the last two phases occur when the "flower program" runs out of code ("new things to
do"). Implementation of these codes in proteins (print functions) has been a non-trivial task, of
course; but God has been at this for more than a few billion years, and He's had plenty of room at
the bottom (atoms, molecules, organelles, etc.) to play around with that have been cleverly
concealed from our sight (due to their nanotechnological nature until the last century when
sufficient means slowly emerged).

So, what about the sacredness of never touching our DNA code? There's nothing sacred
about it. I repeat: There is nothing sacred about it. Our code was fabricated according to the
same laws of Las-Vegas or Monte-Carlo Casinos in which the House wins but nobody else in
particular among the patrons will leave a winner; they will all depart empty-handed sooner or
later if they continue to place bets. If you want to be a winner, buy stock in the casino; never
play there, no matter what your "game of choice." So there you have it. Conventional religion
of all persuasions has sold you a bill of goods for its own purposes - - the self interest of the
clergy and its high priests. Indeed, we have a sacred duty to modify our DNA or we will surely
perish, as have all our biomachine predecessors before us. Gaining access to pristine sequences
of our DNA for autologous infusion of fresh stem cells will be highest on our agenda until we
figure out how to construct artificial chromosomes for the purpose of rejuvenation of our
wretched, aging bodies once we are past our time of highest fertility. I guess it's time to get back
to work.

Click for an audio narration of the text
shown above. Sadly, it appears that our audio files have been lost in transferring files between
servers and did not make it over when we changed Internet Service Providers many years ago.
We will search for them when time permits.

Notes on our early history: The First Draft
of this Charter was composed during in the Fall of 1991. It has not been substantially revised
over the last 22 years, so it has remained highly durable. - December 2013.
In the interest of full disclosure, it should be noted that there once was an organization that
preceded the GRG. It was formed by four individuals (Stephen Coles, Charles Goldberg, David
Griffith, and Alfred Kromholtz) who met together as a group at one moment in time in New
York City during the Summer of 1960. The name of the organization was parsimoniously called
The Organization.
The Project defined by this prescient group after about two hours of discussion was called
"Project I" [BTW, the "I" stood for Immortality, not for the Roman Number One, although there
might be future projects with a new numbering system to sort them out, if this first Project were
ever to be completed]. The original Project called for three subparts to be completed by the year
2000: Biology (40 percent), Bionics (40 percent), and Implications for Society (20 percent).
Progress reports were to be written every ten years in 1970, 1980, and 1990, with a Final Report
to be completed in the year 2000. In retrospect, the first part (Molecular Biology) has turned out
to be the most difficult and continues to consume all of our full-time attention. The
documentation for these reports exists in type-writer written form (computers did not exist in
1961). Hopefully, someone someday will extract this document buried in all my personal papers
(240 boxes of books in storage) distinguished with the Classification "Restricted to Core,"
formally declassify it, scan it in to a pdf file, and publish it on this website for all to read. - Steve
Coles